On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 22:16:07 +0000, Erik wrote: > On 15/11/16 14:43, Michael Torrie wrote: >> As you've been told several times, if you "import deen" then you can >> place a new object into the deen namespace using something like: >> >> deen.foo=bar >> >> Importing everything from an imported module into the current module's >> namespace is not the best idea > > But "from foo import *" is not importing "everything". It's the opposite > - it's importing everything _that the module wants to explicitly expose_ > (i.e., a subset of everything ;)). > > It *used* to be everything in the module's namespace, but then the > possibly misnamed "__all__" magic variable made it a subset of whatever > the module's author wanted to expose. > > However, "import foo" _does_ import "everything", and also gives the > importer the power to re-bind names within that module's namespace too > (which is the crux of the original question). This is not usually a good > thing unless the importing module is incestuous with the imported > module. > > So this brings up another point - not sure if it has been made before: > should a module have a way of *not* allowing an importer to re-bind its > local bindings? > > For example, something like a "__bindable__" variable such that all > names not included may not be bound by any other module? And/or > something like an "__export__" variable that says what gets exposed to a > simple "import foo" (sometimes one might want to "import foo" and > sometimes "from foo import *" for namespace reasons, but why should > those two statements import different things)? > > E.
>From deen import * imports all the things in deen but accessable with no `deen.` import deen imports all of deen but accessible via `deen.thing` -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
